A review of “Iran: The Forgotten Glory”

“All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he [including Daniel] shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of Daniel,” Chapter 6, Verses 7 through 9 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible) – a notable chapter in the Bible to mention the Persians

There are actually three pre-Islamic empires in Persia, and this film is about two of them

There are actually three pre-Islamic empires in Persia. This film is about two of them. The first episode covers the Achaemenid Empire, and the second episode covers the Sasanian Empire. Thus, they (mostly) skip over the Parthian Empire that was between these two great groups. (More about that empire later.) The first episode is roughly 53 minutes long, while the second episode is roughly 44 minutes long. Thus, this film is a little more than an hour and a half in all. It’s a reasonably good primer on the history of Ancient Persia. But its focus seems to be more archeological than historical. Its focus is on showing ancient ruins and reliefs, and what they tell us about the Ancient Persians. And I’m perfectly okay with this film being so low-budget. They make reasonably good use of maps, reconstructions, and other relevant images. They rely on two talking-head scholars, one of them speaking a language that I presume to be Farsi – the Iranian dialect of modern Persian. The other is an American guy from California, whose name suggests some Iranian ancestry of his own – something that proves to be quite helpful in this context. And the film’s credits show many Iranian names involved in the making of this film. But one feels that the viewer doesn’t get a great understanding of Persia’s military or political history, or even their cultural history. They don’t even really show where these great Persian events took place. It’s just an examination of the artifacts from the time (including their art), and what they tell us about the Ancient Persians themselves.

Darius the Great

A review of Michael Wood’s “In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great”

“Whilst the Amphictyonic confederacy remained, that of the Achaeans, which comprehended the less important cities only, made little figure on the theatre of Greece. When the former became a victim to Macedon, the latter was spared by the policy of Philip and Alexander [the Great].”

– Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 18)

One of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India …

He was one of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India. Before he reached age 30, Alexander the Great created a massive empire that would include much of the world, as it was known to the Mediterraneans in his time. Our best sources for his expedition include two histories, both written some centuries after the time of Alexander. One of these two historians was Greek, while the other was a Roman. But Alexander was a Macedonian. The Macedonian language no longer exists today, but it was definitely related to Greek. Some have even considered the Macedonians to be “Greeks” themselves. The host of this program sometimes seems to think so. But the Macedonians did not consider themselves to be “Greeks.” Nor did the self-identified “Greeks” consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. Nonetheless, it is true that the Macedonians spread Greek culture to a then-unprecedented extent. Nothing would spread Greek culture so widely again until the advent of the Roman Empire, which was some centuries later. I thought that it might have been helpful for the host to clarify this issue, even with a brief sentence or two. But this is actually a truly great film despite this omission.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Africa, the Middle East, and Italy

“♪ We’re the D-Day Dodgers, out in Italy,

Always on the vino, always on the spree.

Eighth Army skivers and their tanks,

We go to war in ties like swanks.

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

In sunny Italy. ♪

♪ We landed at Salerno, a holiday with pay.

Jerry brought his bands out to cheer us on the way,

Showed us the sights and gave us tea,

We all sang songs, the beer was free.

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

The lads that D-Day dodged. ♪

♪ Palermo and Cassino were taken in our stride,

We didn’t go to fight there, we just went for the ride.

Anzio and Sangro are just names,

We only went to look for dames,

For we’re the D-Day Dodgers,

In sunny Italy. ♪”

– “D-Day Dodgers” (1944), to the tune of “Lili Marleen” (written in 1915, but not published until 1937) – a tongue-in-cheek Canadian song about the forgotten (and then-ongoing) campaigns in Italy

How the war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France …

The war against Nazi Germany began long before the 1944 invasion of France. Listening to some popular histories of World War II, you might be tempted to suppose that the war began when the Allies launched their invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944. But, in fact, the war began long before the famous battles fought on this great “D-Day.” This post will focus on some of the other aspects of the war against Nazi Germany, giving details on times and places that are often ignored elsewhere. To some degree, I myself have ignored them elsewhere on this blog, because I review various documentaries with more traditional focuses. Thus, I will try to address these deficiencies in this blog post, and tell a story that has sometimes been neglected – including, to some degree, by myself.

British artillery in Kamerun, Africa, 1915 (during the First World War)

Reflections on learning about history of Ancient Israel

“This book is intended for people of all faiths – and for skeptics, too. It reflects no particular religious commitments – nor is it anti-religious. The authors include Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. They live in Israel, France, and the United States.”

– Hershel Shanks, in “Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple” (Revised & Expanded Edition), page xvii – part of a section entitled “Introduction to the Original Edition”

This book is an introduction to the much-debated archeology of the Bible

The archeology of the Bible is one of the most hotly-debated areas in all of archeology. Jews, Christians, and their respective critics all seem to have something to say about it. Some Jewish and Christian scholars have gone so far as to argue that archeology “proves” the truth of either the Hebrew Bible, or the Christian Bible, or both. Some critics of these religions have done the exact opposite, arguing that archeology “disproves” one or both of these religions. The archeological evidence, they say, is “inconsistent” with the historical narrative as presented by their respective scriptures.

A review of PBS’s “Lawrence of Arabia: The Battle for the Arab World”

The Arab Revolt against the rule of the Ottoman Turks …

When people hear the phrase “World War One,” they usually think of Europe. But it was also fought in the Middle East, by people like “Lawrence of Arabia.” During the war, the Arabs revolted against the rule of the Ottoman Turks. They had been ruled by the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and they didn’t like it. Thus, the British were able to convince them to revolt near the beginning of World War One. They sent a man named T. E. Lawrence to promise both British support and Arab independence. He is now known as “Lawrence of Arabia,” and he would later be famous for his role in the Arab Revolt. But he would also feel some guilt over how the revolt later turned out.

T. E. Lawrence, the man now known as “Lawrence of Arabia”

A review of “The Life of Muhammad”

“Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are firm with the disbelievers and compassionate with one another.”

– English translation of The Quran, Surah 48:29

A biography of the founder of Islam, who lived in the Early Middle Ages …

Of the English-language films about the Prophet Muhammad, this one appears to be the longest. It is a journalistic examination of his life, and is good despite this journalistic style. It was made by the BBC, but distributed in America through PBS. If I am not mistaken, the film was directed by one British Muslim, written by another, and presented by still another – namely, Rageh Omaar. I am glad that this documentary was made by Muslims, because it allows one to hear an inside perspective on their faith. For this reason, one wishes that PBS’s film “The Mormons” had been made by a Latter-Day Saint filmmaker – or more precisely, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. “The Life of Muhammad” gives a three-hour overview of the life of Islam’s great prophet – which provides no pictures of Muhammad himself, in deference to the Muslim prohibitions on these pictures of the prophet. Nonetheless, this film succeeds in providing its viewer with a visually interesting biography despite this limitation.

Rageh Omaar, the presenter of this documentary

A review of “Islam: Empire of Faith” (PBS Empires)

“˹He is˺ Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him, the Lord of the Mighty Throne.”

– English translation of The Quran, Surah 27:26

A history of medieval Islam, and the empires that it influenced …

Islam seems always to be in the news these days. Ever since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we have heard much about this religion (not all of it accurate). But this series came out before the terrorist attacks had ever happened – the year 2000, to be specific. This may actually be a virtue of the series, that it came out before then. It makes it easier to be objective about their history, and to not read contemporary interpretations into their history that might be best left out. We get neither a heroic nor a villainous version of Islam, but something in between. We hear well-deserved praise of their massive achievements, as well as some presentation of the controversies involved in their history.

A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)

Also known as the “Eastern Roman Empire,” which lasted about a thousand years longer than the better-known “Western Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire was divided into western and eastern halves more than once in its history. Sometimes, the halves reunited; but when they were divided again in 395, the separation became permanent. When Westerners discussing this period use the phrase “the Roman Empire,” they are usually talking about the western portion, which fell in the year 476. But the eastern portion didn't fall until the year 1453, and it is now known to us as the “Byzantine Empire.”

Map of the split of the Roman Empire into East and West, in AD 395

To the inhabitants of this empire, it was originally known as the “Eastern” Roman Empire. But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the eastern empire had now become the only “Roman Empire” still remaining. Thus, it became convenient for the people living under it to refer to these eastern territories as simply the “Roman Empire.” Why, then, do contemporary English speakers instead tend to refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire”?

A review of “Jerusalem: Center of the World” (PBS)

“Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” Chapter 52, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city” …

Three of the world's great religions have looked upon Jerusalem as a “holy city.” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have an intimate historical connection with the city. These three religions may be the most prominent of what scholars today call the “Abrahamic religions.” The city has long been hot real estate (and still is today), and has been the site of more than a hundred battles scattered throughout its history.

The “Temple Mount” in Jerusalem, with the Dome of the Rock in the center

Jerusalem really is the “Center of the World” (or at least, the “Old World”) …

I live in the distant United States, the most powerful country in the “New World.” By contrast, Jerusalem lies in the “Old World” – a world which consists primarily of three continents; which are Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – lie in the middle of that “Old World.” This may be part of why this documentary calls Jerusalem the “Center of the World,” as it does here. As with the Middle East in general, the central location of Jerusalem may be both a blessing and a curse to it. It is a blessing in some ways, because it was at the center of the world's trade routes, and has long been such. But it is also something of a curse, because its central location accounts (at least partially) for why it has long been such hot real estate. The Middle East in general – and Jerusalem in particular – continue to be something of a battleground today. But the importance of Jerusalem also has strong religious components, which are rooted in the unique history of this city.

In defense of Ronald Reagan: Helping the mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan War

During the Reagan administration, we were allied with both Iraq and Afghanistan …

In the Ronald Reagan era, America had two allies that seem somewhat ironic today: Iraq and Afghanistan. In the twenty-first century, America would later go to war with both of these countries. Thus, some have perceived a contradiction between the earlier alliance and the later hostilities. But to me, it would seem that there is a common theme running through both of these policies, which is American national interest. I will attempt to explain this interest in this post, and show why Reagan's support for the mujahideen was both justified and worthwhile.

Three “mujahideen”  in Asmar – Afghanistan, 1985

A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)

To say that the relationship between Islam and the West is sometimes troubled would be something of an understatement. Since the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christians and Muslims have often made war on each other. As it turns out, their sometime antagonism has roots going back deep into the Middle Ages; and some conflict between them still persists today. The most controversial episode in this long history may still be the medieval Crusades, where the Roman Catholic Church sent its soldiers into the Holy Land, ostensibly to help the Byzantine Empire to protect itself from the “Muslim invaders.” Their assistance had ironically been requested by the Byzantine emperor Alexios, whose empire had another form of Christianity – namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But despite their common ground, the relationship between the Orthodox Byzantines and the Catholic Crusaders was somewhat troubled at best, and not just because of their differing versions of Christianity. The Catholic Crusaders were, of course, arriving there more for their own benefit than for that of the Byzantines. Nonetheless, the Byzantines could not afford to offend their Catholic Crusader allies; and so they were unfortunately caught in this crossfire during much of the First Crusade (and afterwards, for that matter).

What does this documentary cover, and what does it not cover?

But after they conclude their discussion of the First Crusade in this documentary, there is virtually no further mention of the Byzantine Empire. After this, the story focuses mainly on the Crusaders and the Muslims – which are both good subjects, but nonetheless somewhat incomplete here. To be sure, this documentary is divided into two parts, and the first part is dedicated to the First Crusade. The second part covers both the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade, but does not really go into any of the others. After the Third Crusade, they mention that there were some campaigns on and off for the next century. However, they do not mention how many there were, by the time these campaigns ended in 1291. In all, there were nine crusades; and this documentary does not cover the last six of them. There is thus a lot of missing territory that I would have liked to see covered here. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the first three crusades were the most important ones, and thus (perhaps) the most worthy of being told for a television audience. Given that I know of few other documentaries covering any part of the Crusades (besides their bonus episode about the Knights Templar), it would thus seem that this documentary doesn't have a lot of competition from any others in this regard. Thus, I won't complain too much about this. Whatever its flaws, this documentary would seem to be a good starting point; and the information therein is also quite good. Thus, my overall assessment of it has tended to be positive; and I also found it to be quite entertaining as well.

Battle of Hattin, 1187 - the turning point of the Crusades

A review of “Paris 1919: Inside the Peace Talks That Changed the World”

“[There shall be a] Surrender in good condition by the German armies of the following war material: Five thousand guns (2,500 heavy, and 2,500 field), 25,000 machine guns, 3,000 minenwerfer, 1,700 airplanes (fighters, bombers - firstly, all of the D 7'S and all the night bombing machines). The above to be delivered in situ to the allied and United States troops in accordance with the detailed conditions laid down in the note (annexure No. 1) drawn up at the moment of the signing of the armistice … ”

– Armistice of 11 November 1918, following World War One

This film is more journalistic than historical, and seems to lack a coherent narrative …

In 1964, the BBC made a landmark documentary called “The Great War.” It may still be the definitive television history of World War One. This is because it interviewed some of the veterans of this war, and is one of the greatest history documentaries ever made. But it had one major weakness, which was that it stopped at virtually the moment of the Armistice. Thus, it contains nothing – and I mean nothing – about what happened after it. Although this has been covered by some other documentaries (notably the CBS television history of World War One), the definitive television history by the BBC contains nothing about it. Thus, I've long been interested to see something about the effects of the war, and the Paris Peace Conference following the war's end. This seemed like a reasonably good introduction to it, so I got a copy of this documentary for Christmas. I found that it was a good production – made by the National Film Board of Canada, incidentally. But it was not the definitive coverage that I expected it to be. Its style seems to be more journalistic than historical, and seems to lack a coherent narrative.

A review of Simon Schama's “The Story of the Jews”

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy,” Chapter 7, Verse 6 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history …

Before watching this series, I had watched another documentary by the same filmmaker, which was Simon Schama's “A History of Britain.” Since Mr. Schama is also British, this was a television history of his own country, and was an inside perspective. This film is similar, because Simon Schama is Jewish, and can thus give an inside perspective on his own ethnic group. He is clearly familiar with the Hebrew language, and he displays this fluency at a number of times throughout this series. But as it turns out, not all ethnic Jews are of the Jewish faith, so there is thus a difference between being ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, and religiously Jewish. Mr. Schama is clearly ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish, but may not be religiously Jewish. Thus, he has struck some as an odd choice to make this series. But considering how many ethnic Jews would match this description, it seems like it works for me. If you want to learn more about their faith, this film will give you some useful background; but you might actually be better off turning to some other source, for this particular kind of information. This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history, and pays only minimal attention to the history of Judaism. Nonetheless, it is still quite good for what it does have to offer.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: North Africa and the Middle East

If there's ever been a peaceful period in Muslim history, the Cold War was not that period …

If there's ever been a peaceful period in Muslim history, the Cold War was not that period. During this period, the Muslim world was something of a battleground, in which the Islamic countries were pawns in a great superpower chess game. The Muslim world encompasses many places – among them South Asia, which actually has more Muslims than North Africa and the Middle East combined. But they do not form a majority in this broader region of South Asia. By contrast, around 90% of North Africa and the Middle East are Muslims, and the same is actually true of Central Asia as well. Since I discuss Central Asia in another blog post about the Soviet war in Afghanistan, I will not do so here. And since I have discussed the South Asian part of the Cold War in another blog post, I will not do that here, either. Here, I will just discuss the traditional power centers of the Muslim world, which are North Africa and the Middle East. Many (but not all) of these conflicts would involve the new state of Israel as well.

An Egyptian artillery piece captured in the First Arab-Israeli War, 1948

A review of “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine”

“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

- The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 11, Verse 26 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Constantine was the first Roman emperor to become a Christian. Thus, “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” is really a history of the early Christian faith, from its beginning with Christ to its flourishing under Constantine. After his conversion, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Today, it is the world's largest religion; and it is doubtful that it would have ever become that way otherwise.

A review of “Kingdom of David: The Saga of the Israelites” (PBS Empires)

“And David perceived that the LORD had confirmed him king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his people Israel.”

- The Hebrew Bible, “The First Book of the Chronicles,” Chapter 14, Verse 2 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

The title of this documentary is only partially correct – it's not about the “Kingdom of David”

The title of this documentary is only partially correct. This is indeed “The Saga of the Israelites,” but it actually has very little coverage of the “Kingdom of David” itself (although it's still a great documentary despite this). It is actually a documentary on a different topic, and has a broader focus than the brief “Kingdom of David.” It instead covers a much broader period of history, including Judaism's clashes with the Greeks and Romans. If you go into this documentary expecting its title to be accurate, you may thus be somewhat disappointed. But this documentary has much to offer despite these things, and covers some history that you may not have heard about. A few Americans will have already heard these stories, I think, but I suspect that most have not; and I was definitely in this category before watching this. I think that I can recommend this documentary to everyone – both Jews and Gentiles.

Reflections on learning about history of the Ancient Near East

"The term 'Near East' is not widely used today. It has survived in a scholarship rooted in the nineteenth century when it was used to identify the remains of the Ottoman empire on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Today we say Middle East to designate this geographical area, but the two terms do not exactly overlap, and ancient historians and archaeologists of the Middle East continue to speak of the Near East, as I will do in this book."

- Marc van de Mieroop's "A History of the Ancient Near East (ca. 3000 - 323 BC)", 2nd edition (2007), page 1

So I recently finished reading a book called "A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 - 323 BC" (2nd edition). This book is by Marc van de Mieroop, and it is one of the few books to cover this time period that is available on Amazon.

So why did I study this particular time period, you might be wondering? What exactly is the "Ancient Near East," anyway; and why would anyone read about it?

My search for the Hebrew Bible in the original

"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left."

- The Hebrew Bible, "The Second Book of Moses Called Exodus," Chapter 14, Verses 21 and 22 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

I am an amateur Biblical scholar (emphasis on the "amateur"). I have been trying to learn Greek so that I can read the New Testament in the original one day. (Any observations about being a shameless nerd are readily agreed with.) Many are surprised to learn that the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were originally written in Greek (rather than Hebrew), and a number have asked me why. The reason is actually that Greek was the international language of the time. It was the language that people published in if they wanted to reach a wide audience, and that was the case with the early New Testament.

By contrast, the Old Testament really was written in Hebrew - or at least, most of it was. Scholars believe that some of it may have originally been written in Aramaic - a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. In the words of my church's Bible Dictionary: "The original language of most of the Old Testament is Hebrew, but a few portions ... were written in what is popularly called Chaldee, but more correctly Aramaic." (Source: Entry on Bible itself)

My church's edition of the Holy Bible

I then didn't have any plans to learn either Hebrew or Aramaic; as they are difficult languages for English speakers, and my primary Biblical interest was in the New Testament. Nonetheless, I thought that as long as I had a copy of the New Testament in the original Greek, I might as well complement it with a copy of the Old Testament in the original as well. Thus, I looked into what version to get; and found that this was easier said than done.

My search for the Greek New Testament

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

- The New Testament, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," Chapter 7, Verses 7 and 8 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Many of you have heard that I am learning Ancient Greek, and that part of the reason for doing so is to be able to read the New Testament in the original. I was curious to see how hard it is to obtain a copy of that online (emphasis on "copy" - not to be confused with original manuscripts), and so I typed it into Google. I discovered that there are a large variety of different editions, some published by one group, some by another. This was a bit of a problem, as I needed to commit to one version for price reasons, and it's hard to know which one to pick.